Teaching students to dig deeper

In Teaching Students to Dig Deeper: The Common Core in Action, Ben Johnson revisits a common theme- writing deepens thinking and thinking deepens memory.  I had a wonderful example of this last month with a student. I work with this student in a resource room setting, focusing mainly on reading instruction. Because I also need to address other subject areas, I introduced a reading on food chains, a topic the science teacher was covering. We spent parts of four days, about 10 minutes each day, working with this reading: day one I read the passage to him and we used a graphic organizer to identify main ideas; day two he reread the passage and we began answering a question about the impact of humans on the food chain by completing a graphic organizer; day three he again read the passage and then we completed the graphic organizer; day four he used his graphic organizer to write a paragraph to answer the question. The truly amazing part of this is that on the test a week later when asked to describe how people impact food chains, the only example he could identify is the one that we had read about, discussed and written about. He was not able to pull examples from class or homework. I know that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) intimidate some teachers, but this one example showed me how easily I could incorporate the ELA goals into my remedial instruction. 

As Ben Johnson observes students need to know something in order to think critically (p. 25). By giving them instruction in class and textbook reading as homework, the teacher had primed my pump. Perhaps my student could not identify the meaning of the key words before we began the project, but they were terms that had been introduced. Then we read a challenging passage multiple times, thinking about how it answered a question and could be used to prove a point. By putting in the hard work of critical reading, thinking and writing, he was able to learn this material and receive his best score on a science test this year.

This text presents a variety of strategies for creating thinking in classrooms. One piece that the author repeated was the importance of creating some stress, but not too much in our students. He observes that as humans, "we love to be challenged just a bit over our capacity, but if the challenge is too hard, we become frustrated and angry, and the hormone cortisol is released, causing our hippocampus to stop all thought" (p. 24). Bad stress prevents learning and if chronic can actually damage the brain. Good stress, on the other hand, causes a release of endorphins that produce a high that enhances learning (p.122-3). I am concerned about the approach to the CCSS that involves presenting students with material that is too challenging because that is what we are told to do. Then not providing adequate scaffolding or support thus reducing the chance that learning actually occurs. We need to sharpen our professional judgment, identify where our children are and present material that will challenge our brightest as well as our most struggling students. This may mean different challenging reading passages, additional scaffolding and individual pacing of work. My concern involves how will CCSS limit differentiation because, "kids need to practice doing the test."

A strategy that I liked was what Johnson describes as critical discussion (p. 37). A problem is posed to a group that must then reach a conclusion by consensus. Role cards such as "Ask me to explain why", "Ask me to assess the pros" and "Ask me to clarify the options" prompt and guide discussion. The role cards help student groups run a discussion group without a teacher present every moment. Students who struggle to work in groups require support and such role cards provide it.

The weakness of the book is that it is written with few actual examples of the strategies in action. Teachers are required to think about their content area and how to implement the strategies without guidance. While this means it is a text appropriate for K-12 and all subject areas, many teachers will need more examples to implement strategies. In a book study, groups could brainstorm lesson ideas, implement them and debrief together, but the dense nature of this book means that it would take a long time to go through it. It will be a good shelf resource, but as the author supports, deep thinking will be required to implement the strategies recommended.

How the common core boosts quality and equality

The December/January 2012/2013 edition of Educational Leadership includes a commentary by William H. Schmidt and Nathan A. Burroughs entitled "How the common core boosts quality and equality." One of the items they comment upon is that the Common Core State Standards present a national curriculum that equals opportunity for students. They cite a survey by NAEP suggesting that nearly three quarters of 8th graders are assigned to math classes based on ability (p. 57, cited from NAEP, 2011)). This, they assert, is both inappropriate and unfair. I would argue that while "many scholars, policymakers, and activists" (p. 57) criticize tracking, there is a reason it continues to exist which is not based solely on educational inertia.

True, tracking has worked hard to earn its bad rap. Inflexible, racially biased tracks did and do constrain many students. When tracking is paired with appropriate differentiation and flexibility between tracks, however, it becomes an effective method for meeting the needs of mathematics students. A study by Chiu, Beru and Watley (2008) yielded positive effects of tracking on both high and low performers (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/recordDetails.jsp?ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ816768&searchtype=keyword&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&accno=EJ816768&_nfls=false&source=ae). Loveless' 2009 study sponsored by the Fordham Institute regarding Massachusetts schools showed that there were 6% more students in advanced classes in tracked programs and a 3% higher representation of low SES students in those classes as well as higher scores for the high achievers on the MCAT (http://www.sbsdk12.org/programs/gate/documents/200912_Detracking.pdf). Studies of Chicago's double dose algebra approach where students who are low performers are given a second algebra support class that involves discussion, hands-on practice and reinforcement of concepts, significantly increased the success rates of the students in math AND English, as well as the student's likelihood of completing high school and going on to post secondary education (http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Double%20Dose-7%20Final%20082610.pdf and http://educationnext.org/a-double-dose-of-algebra/)

Further, much research supports the concept that gifted children are hurt by heterogeneous tracking. For a sampling:

•  http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10236.aspx 
• http://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-grouping-homogeneous-heterogeneous-ben-johnson
• http://www.cmu.edu/cmites/abilitygrouping.html
• http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2006/03/when_ability_gr.php
•  http://www.aei.org/article/education/k-12/system-reform/closing-the-achievement-gap-but-at-gifted-students-expense/ 
• http://educationnext.org/all-together-now/
• http://www.rtsd.org/cms/lib/PA01000218/Centricity/Domain/799/detracking%20effect%20on%20low%20perf.pdf
• http://researchhighachievers.wicomico.wikispaces.net/file/view/Tracking+and+Ability+Grouping.pdf 
• http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct92/vol50/num02/Gifted-Students-Talk-About-Cooperative-Learning.aspx

High ability students become disinterested and disengaged in school, they have more social issues and they do not perform as well in upper level math classes. Teachers who are under great pressure to bring up the scores of the struggling students in order to keep their jobs often do not have the time and energy to attempt to meet the needs of the high achievers in their classrooms; after all, those students will get it when placed in a room with a rock- won't they? Tracking allows teachers to focus their attention and time in a meaningful way on all students.

"Harrison Bergeron" is a satirical and dystopian science-fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. in which people are made equal by donning handicapping devices. No one is allowed to be better at anything than others. This is not the model we wish for our education system. We want our best students to become our movers, shakers and inventors of the future. If we insist on providing an equal education to all, we are meeting Vonnegut's ideal. If we provide high achievers access everywhere to fast moving, advanced programs, and high quality programs to all, we are meeting the goal of helping students reach their individual potentials. Can a national curriculum provide some frame work for this? Yes. But just like you want students to move flexibly between achievement groups, I want them to move flexibly between "grades" within the curriculum. Let's encourage our high performers to go above grade level and test them there. Let's support our struggling students and allow the very lowest to learn and test below grade level until they can meaningfully be tested at grade level.